Every few weeks, a fresh headline emerges from the Kashmir Valley announcing another “encounter,” in which security forces claim to have eliminated a terrorist. The pattern underlying these announcements has become an entrenched reality for the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
The incident at Arhama, Ganderbal, on the night of March 31, 2026, in which the army asserted that a single “terrorist” was killed and a cache of weapons recovered, is emblematic of this routine.
The family of the deceased, Raashid Ahmad Mughal, insists he was a civilian with no militant connections. Their grief is compounded by a lingering sense that, as in so many prior cases, justice may remain a distant mirage.
For three decades, the Valley has been punctuated by stories that echo the same refrain: a cordon-and-search operation, a claim of a “neutralised” militant, the discovery of weapons, and a subsequent promise of a magisterial inquiry.
Over the past 36 years, more than 500 such inquiries and judicial probes have reportedly been initiated. Yet not a single report has been made public, nor have any perpetrators been held to account.
The numbers are staggering. More than 8,000 people, men, women, and children, have been extra-judicially killed, and an equal number have vanished while in the custody of security forces. Victims are often labelled “terrorists” or “over-ground workers” without credible evidence, a blanket classification that strips them of the protections afforded to civilians.
The Ganderbal case fits this template. The army’s narrative speaks of a gunfight in a forest area, with the recovery of an AK-56 rifle, magazines, and dozens of rounds of ammunition. The family, however, points to Raashid’s lack of any militant affiliation.
If substantiated, this would transform the incident from a lawful operation into another alleged fake encounter. The Lieutenant Governor’s order for a magisterial inquiry, while procedurally necessary, rings hollow against the backdrop of past promises that have rarely led to accountability.
What drives this persistent climate of alleged extrajudicial violence? For many observers, the answer lies in a complex mix of strategic imperatives and systemic incentives. Security personnel operating under the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) enjoy broad legal protections from prosecution. This framework, critics argue, can embolden the misuse of force and weaken accountability.
Troubling Perception
There is also a troubling perception of a parallel economy of fear. Families sometimes believe that refusal to comply with demands may put them at risk, while informants may be incentivised to provide information that supports official narratives.
In such an environment, the line between law enforcement and coercion becomes blurred, and justice risks being reduced to a transactional process.
The phrase “impunity breeds bloodshed” captures the feedback loop sustaining this crisis. When state actors are perceived to operate without accountability, public trust erodes. This erosion can fuel resentment and, in some cases, contribute to cycles of radicalisation. Young people, witnessing alleged injustices, may be drawn toward the very militancy that such operations aim to eliminate.
This pattern is not unique to Kashmir. History offers many examples where unchecked powers granted in conflict zones have produced outcomes contrary to their stated objectives. Instead of stabilising regions, they have often deepened alienation and prolonged conflict.
What, then, is the path forward?
First, the magisterial inquiry into the Arhama incident must be genuinely independent. It should be free from the oversight of the same security apparatus involved in the operation. This requires appointing a panel of judges or senior lawyers with no prior institutional affiliation to the armed forces or police. Its proceedings should be transparent, with regular public updates.
Second, the broader legal framework governing counterinsurgency in Kashmir must be revisited. The AFSPA, which grants sweeping powers and near-total immunity, has long been criticised by human rights bodies. A phased review, combined with the creation of a credible civilian oversight mechanism — similar to independent investigation models used in other conflict regions — could help restore trust.
Third, families of victims deserve comprehensive support. Compensation alone is insufficient. A holistic approach should include psychological counselling, educational opportunities for affected children, and the restoration of property where applicable. Such measures acknowledge not just loss of life but the long-term impact on communities.
The Ganderbal encounter is not merely an isolated incident. It is a reflection of a larger, entrenched crisis where allegations of extrajudicial killings continue to surface under the framework of counterterrorism. The promise of inquiry is necessary, but it is not enough. It must lead to outcomes that are visible, credible, and just.
The people of Kashmir, who have endured decades of uncertainty and loss, deserve more than procedural assurances. They deserve a system that values truth over narrative and accountability over expediency.
Until mechanisms of accountability are strengthened and perceptions of impunity addressed, the Valley risks remaining trapped in a cycle of grief, anger, and recurring violence. The time to act is now, before another life is lost to a story that has been told too many times before.
Have you liked the news article?